Loading...
01/11/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD January 11, 1990 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto P. Gans Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney - (arrived 4:00 p.m.) Also present: Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk James Polatty, Planning and Development Director - (arrived 1:15 p.m.) The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two (2) weeks. He noted that Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM A - (request for time extension) Robert Golomb for a variance of 15 ft to permit an office addition 10 ft from a street right-of-way (Madison Ave.) at 1122 Druid Rd East, Maryland Sub, Blk B-6, Lots 16-20 & part of Lots 3, 4, & 15, zoned OL (limited office) and RM-28 (multiple family residential). V 89-111 The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Gans moved to grant a six month time extension to July 13, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (request for time extension) James Weber for variances of 1) 13 ft to permit swimming pool 12 ft from a street right-of-way, and 2) 16 ft to permit pool enclosure 9 ft from a street right-of-way, at 221 Orangewood Ave, Glenwood Estates Addition, Lot 63, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-114 The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Gans moved to grant a six month time extension to July 13, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM C - (request for time extension) Duane Barton for variances of 1) one parking space to permit establishment of 1,344 sq ft office, 2) zero landscaping between vehicle use area and adjacent commercial property, 3) 3 ft to permit circulation aisle zero ft from adjacent commercial property, 4) 1,097 sq ft to permit construction on a 8,903 sq ft lot, and 5) 30 ft to permit construction on lot 70 ft wide, at 514 Brookside Dr, Brookside Sub, Lot 3, zoned CG (general commercial). V 89-123 The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Graham moved to grant a six month time extension to July 13, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM D - (request for time extension) Jean Stuart and Evelyn Hinsey for variances of 1) 6 ft to permit construction of house 19 ft from a street right-of-way, and 2) 3 ft 9 inches to permit construction of house 6 ft 3 inches from a rear property line, at 1539 Ridgewood St, Glenwood, Lot 140, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-127 The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Gans moved to grant a six month time extension to July 27, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Peace Memorial Homes. Inc. (Osceola Inn) for a variance of 29 parking spaces to permit 33 additional parking spaces in lieu of the 62 additional parking spaces required by code at 221 Osceola Ave, Section 9-29-15, M&B 43.09, 43.10, 43.101, AND T.H. Kingston, Lots 1-3, AND Hayden's Estate Revised, part of Lot 2, zoned UC(C) (urban center - core). V 90-01 Staff has recommended that this application be continued until January 25, 1990 in order to obtain more information. The applicant concurs with this continuance. Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 25, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - James and Dolores Sack for a variance of 18 inches in height to permit a 48 inch high chain link fence in setback area from a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed at 1449 Hamlet Ave, Belleview Court, Blk D, part of Lot 18, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). V 90-02 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a duplex. The existing fence appears to have been placed within the setback area. Staff recommends denial of the variance. James Sack stated the fence is needed to discourage vandalism. He indicated, since the fence has been erected, vandalism and security problems have been reduced. There was discussion concerning the height of the fence and whether or not this is a minimum variance. Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #3 - Sandor Karaszi for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed at 2104 Beckett Lake Dr, Beckett Lake Estates, Blk 3, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-03 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a single family residence. The applicant wishes to fence the swimming pool area behind the house. The old fencing and landscaping have deteriorated beyond repair. The fence will be set back approximately 21 feet from Lansing Drive right-of-way and 3 feet from Montclair Road right-of-way. Landscaping will be provided on the right-of-way side of the fence along both streets. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Sandor Karaszi stated a 6 foot high fence is being requested to provide for greater security and privacy as the property is a corner lot. In response to a question, it was indicated the variance covers both Lansing Drive and Montclair Road. There was discussion concerning whether or not privacy could be provided by landscaping rather than fencing. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code; it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant; it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by being located on Montclair Road and needing protection around the pool; the subdivision regulations intended for a fence to be there and it would be in conformance with what is appropriate in that neighborhood, subject to the conditions that a hedge be planted and maintained on the right-of-way side of the fence on both Montclair Road and Lansing Drive, that the plants be at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting and shall form an opaque screen at least 6 feet high, and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Graham, Homer and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #4 - Landmark Reserve Partnership for a variance of 4 ft 6 inches in height to permit 29 ft 6 inch maximum height for all homes in proposed subdivision on Oakmont Drive, Florida Convalescent Centers, Lot A, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). V 90-04 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance is for proposed residential structures within a new 14 lot subdivision. Each lot is to be developed with two dwelling units consisting of a large two-story estate style home and a second one-story structure to be used as a "guest house or servant's quarters." Staff recommends approval of the variances. In response to a question, it was indicated large single story estate homes are developed to the south and are zoned for two family. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated even though the vacant site has high density zoning, only 14 single family estate homes are to be built. The homes will be in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000. It was indicated that the Oak Creek Homeowners Association located to the south would not object to the application if the "guest houses" on Lots 1 - 7 are only one story high. Dick Geiger, representing the applicant, discussed the design of the proposed homes, indicating the pitch of the roof will be kept to a minimum. The guest houses will be limited to relatives and hired help only and not used as rental. It was indicated this condition is to be written into the deed restrictions. One letter in support was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued in regard to the lot size and whether or not the hardship had been self-imposed. It was indicated the width of the lot was not a factor and that the extra height was needed due to the size of the proposed homes. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code; it arises from a condition which is unique to the development and was not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings and geographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, this being a type of development which is somewhat unique in the City of Clearwater, with the houses being of a much larger size than normal, the property being a two-family type dwelling located in a residential area of the City, and this being a downzoning of the property in a sense; subject to the conditions that the guest houses on Lots 1 - 7 be no more than one story or 18 feet in height, that at no time will the guest houses be rented to any person or persons, and that a final plat be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. In response to a question, it was indicated this would be considered a blanket variance which would apply to the subdivision plat. ITEM #5 - Thomas and Sonja Jones for a variance of 17 ft 6 inches to permit swimming pool 7 ft 6 inches from a street right-of-way at 841 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay, Blk 40, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-05 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a single family home located at the corner of Gardenia Street and Bay Esplanade. Part of Gardenia Street is used as a public access for viewing Clearwater Harbor. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Charles Curtis, representing the applicant, stated the property east of the seawall belongs to the property owner. In response to a question, he indicated the proposed pool would be smaller than standard. In response to a question, the applicant indicated the hedge along Gardenia Street is in the right-of-way and indicated he would be removing the concrete walk and slab extending beyond his property line. Discussion ensued regarding the hedge being on City property and the applicant indicated he would continue to maintain it. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by substandard lots on Clearwater Beach (60 feet by 110 feet); subject to the conditions that the applicant understands that the hedge on the south side of this property which extends approximately 20 feet into Gardenia Street right-of-way is City property and makes no claim of ownership to it and is not compelled by this Board to remove it, and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #6 - John Connelly and Robert Nussear for a variance to allow pole sign to be used in lieu of a wall or canopy sign at 635 Court St, Court Square, Blk 13, Lot 5 and north 1/2 of adjacent alley, zoned UC(C) (urban center (core)). V 90-06 The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Staff recommends approval of the variance. John Connelly stated the signage is to identify a construction company. He indicated the adjacent buildings block the visibility of the name on the canopy. He expressed concern that customers looking for his business would create a traffic hazard. One citizen spoke in support of the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the obstruction of any signage from westbound traffic on Court Street as a result of the properties to the east; subject to the conditions that no wall or canopy signs shall be permitted in the future so long as a pole sign, which is the subject of this variance exists, and that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #7 - Stephen and Kerry Sherrill for a variance of 1.2 ft to permit a second floor addition 3.8 ft from a side property line at 623 Mariva Ave, Hillcrest Addition, Lot 5, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-07 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property had been "grandfathered in" with the current side setback of 3.8 feet. The applicant is proposing a second story addition which will continue to be 3.8 feet from the north property line in order to architecturally match the character of the house. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Stephen Sherrill stated the house was built in 1940. He indicated the addition is needed to accommodate his family. In response to a question, it was indicated a variance to allow for a cantilevered bath will be addressed on January 25th and does not affect this request. There was discussion regarding whether or not this variance extends a non-conformity and it was indicated the footprint would be increased by 8 feet. Mr. Sherrill indicated the addition will enhance the neighborhood and encourage others in the area to improve their properties. In response to a question, it was indicated the first floor porch area would be converted into a family room, pantry and small bath. One citizen spoke in support of the application and one petition with seven signatures in support was submitted for the record. In response to a question, it was indicated there was no objection from the developer to the north who is proposing to develop 10 townhouse units. Concern was expressed regarding the plan not reflecting the proposed bathroom extension, and it was indicated the variance being considered does not include that extension, only the footprint at grade. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code; it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant; the particular surroundings and shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the existing house which was built in 1940 on that property and this is the only apparent area for the addition; subject to the conditions that the proposed variance that is being considered is for the footprint as shown on the application only, and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Graham, Merriam, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. The Board recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. ITEM #8 - Fred Sadowski for a variance of 14 ft to permit a 46 ft 6 inch dock length at 124 Devon Dr, Bayside Sub, Lot 11, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-08 The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Mike Evans, representing the applicant, stated the dock extension would allow the boat to be moored in deeper water. He indicated the dock would be in conformance with the other docks on Devon Drive. In response to a question, he indicated there will be no tie poles on the dock at this time. Discussion ensued in regard to the location of tie poles and it was indicated a review would be necessary before tie poles could be installed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance without tie poles because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code; it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant; and the particular physical shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #9 - Henry and Betty Staniszeski for variances 1) of 8.2 ft to permit addition 1.8 ft from a rear property line, and 2) to permit expansion of a nonconforming use, at 1539 Tilley Ave, Belmont Second Addition, Blk C. Lots 31-34, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). V 90-09 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with two detached single family dwellings. The dwelling in the southeast corner is proposed to be expanded. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Betty Staniszeski stated she has health problems and wishes to expand a dwelling to have her daughter and grandchildren live nearby. Her daughter is on welfare and is unemployed due to the need to stay home with her children. There was concern expressed regarding the dwelling being close to the rear property line. James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated if the variance is approved, the applicant will be eligible for a rehabilitation loan for improvements. Discussion ensued regarding the design of the dwellings and it was indicated the proposed layout would be the least expensive. One citizen spoke in opposition and also indicated strong opposition from the neighborhood. Concern was expressed regarding expanding a nonconforming structure and the closeness of the expansion to adjacent properties causing a fire hazard. She questioned the wisdom of using community funds to add on to a badly deteriorated building. She indicated help is available for desperate situations through the Clearwater Housing Authority on an emergency basis. Concern was also expressed that the owner would be doing some of the expansion work. This was felt to be unusual in the case of rehabilitation loans. Eight letters and one petition with 26 signatures in opposition were submitted for the record. There was discussion concerning razing the structure and building a new dwelling. Michael Hughes, of Community Development, stated the Community Development Block Grant funds cannot be used for new construction and indicated the building was sound enough to be reconstructed. Discussion ensued regarding rehabilitating a nonconforming structure and it was indicated the Code is not clear in this regard. Mr. Polatty stated he was not aware of the strong opposition to the application and questioned whether the zoning classification was appropriate for this area. Discussion ensued concerning what options were available to the applicant using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The Planning and Development Director requested a continuance to investigate. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 25, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of December 14, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Due to a family emergency, Mrs. Whitney arrived at 4:00 p.m. The Board requested the Planning Official investigate the storage building on Highland Avenue and the inflated balloon over Workplace at Sunset Point Plaza for possible Code violations. Discussion ensued regarding having a "Consent" agenda for cases with no written or oral opposition. The Board requested the Planning and Development Director discuss this procedure with the City Attorney. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.